Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 7

Unnamed

Update: Discussion has moved on to a new thread.

The load more comments links are getting annoying (at least if you're not logged in), so it's time for a new Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread. We're also approaching the traditional 500-comment mark, but I think that hidden comments provide more appropriate joints to carve these threads at. So as of chapter 67, this is the place to share your thoughts about Eliezer Yudkowsky's Harry Potter fanfic.

The first 5 discussion threads are on the main page under the harry_potter tag. Threads 6 and on (including this one) are in the discussion section using its separate tag system. Also: one, two, three, four, five, six. The fanfiction.net author page is the central author-controlled HPMOR clearinghouse with links to the RSS feed, pdf version, TV Tropes pages, fan art, and more, and AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author's Notes.

As a reminder, it's often useful to start your comment by indicating which chapter you are commenting on.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that "Eliezer said X is true" unless you use rot13.

Update: Discussion has moved on to a new thread.

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that "Eliezer said X is true" unless you use rot13.

an online test seems to suggest that I don't suffer from this

A fun thing happend to me. I did the test at http://mindbluff.com/movblink.htm and I noticed the C but only subconciously, that is I knew that I had seen the C, but I didn't remember actually seing it.

I consciously saw an R, and I consciously saw a C later in the sequence, but I couldn’t tell if they were actually consecutive, nor if there were other R’s and C’s around them. (I didn’t look at the video in slow motion to check.)

Just in case someone’s counting :)

0TobyBartels15y

The first time, I noticed the ‘C’ only. The second time, I consciously noticed them both. (ETA: This isn't the test that I took before.) To what extent might your feeling that ‘I knew that I had seen the C’ be influenced by their having earlier told you that you would? (For that matter, what are the odds that what I ‘consciously noticed’ was an illusion?) An interesting test might be one where there is no ‘C’, asking people whether they saw it.